Standing Committee E

[Mr. Peter Pike in the Chair]

Housing Bill

Peter Pike: Before I start the proceedings, I assure Members—male Members, that is—that they are entitled to remove their jackets. It will save me time if they do not ask me whether they can do so in future when I am in the Chair. I am relaxed about people taking off their jackets.Clause 1 New system for assessing housing conditions and enforcing housing standards

Clause 1 - New system for assessing housing conditions and enforcing housing standards

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 3, in 
clause 1, page 2, line 3, leave out 'and' and insert— 
 '(aa) the new emergency measures contained in Chapter 2A (emergency remedial action and emergency prohibition orders), and'.—[Keith Hill.]
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Peter Pike: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
 Government amendments Nos. 4 to 7. 
 Government amendment No. 10. 
 Amendment No. 221, in 
clause 8, page 6, line 39, at end add— 
 '(d) their function under this Part in responding to emergency or urgent situations.'.
 Government amendments Nos. 11 to 15. 
 Government amendment No. 20. 
 Government new clause 4—Emergency remedial action. 
 Government new clause 5—Notice of emergency remedial action. 
 Government new clause 6—Recovery of expenses of taking emergency remedial action. 
 Government new clause 7—Emergency prohibition orders. 
 Government new clause 8—Contents of emergency prohibition orders. 
 Government new clause 9—Appeals relating to emergency measures. 
 I believe that Mr. Davey had the Floor when the Committee adjourned this morning.

Edward Davey: Thank you, Mr. Pike. It is a great privilege to welcome you to the Chair, but I believe that I had sat down, and that the Minister for Housing and Planning was nearing the end of his comments—indeed, it is possible that he had sat down and that we were getting close to a decision. That is my recollection.

Peter Pike: And here I had hoped to hear some scintillating comment from the hon. Gentleman. I call the Minister.

Keith Hill: Let me concur in two respects with the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). First, I, too, extend a warm welcome to you as Chairman, Mr. Pike. I have had the pleasure of serving under your expert, wise and benevolent chairmanship on many occasions. I look forward to you exercising all those wonderful qualities in our proceedings. Secondly, I concur with him that I had concluded my observations.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendment made: No. 4, in 
clause 1, page 2, line 4, leave out 'ones' and insert 'kinds of enforcement action'.—[Keith Hill.]
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Edward Davey: Several issues have not been covered under the two groups of amendments, and I would like to examine them now.
 I welcome the new rating system. A lot of research and consultation has gone into it, and most outside experts and local authorities say that we are moving towards getting it right. There are some details from which we shall try to iron out the final wrinkles—we will come to them in the next and other clauses—but it is worth putting it on the record that the system is an improvement. However, there may be an argument to be made in relation to a later set of amendments on how we should introduce the version 2 guidance, because that version has not yet been piloted and tested. Overall, the experience of piloting version 1 has led to some improvements—as, of course, has the Select Committee's report. 
 I have a pretty fundamental question about the process for the Minister. There is a debate about adopting a numerical system that relies on calculations to produce a number, and about the extent to which that will allow environmental health officers to exercise discretion and judgment. The old system was very much judgment-based, although there were lots of guidelines and advice. In the early stages of developing the new system, the Government tried to operate a purely numerical system, but the experience of the version 1 pilot caused them to change to a system that aims to combine numerical assessments and judgments. Perhaps the Minister can say a little bit more about that on the record. 
 Although there are references to it in the guidance—which is great reading for people who are having problems getting to sleep at night—it would be good if the Minister clearly told those environmental health officers who are worried by the new numerical system that their judgment will decide whether something is a category 1 or a category 2 hazard. That is important, not only to assuage their concerns, but because the Minister knows that if it were just a numerical value that determined how the rating system worked, there would be a danger that legal challenges would focus on the details of the calculation. 
 Although the version 2 guidance notes are admirably clear, the idea that the calculation is incontestable would not stand up in court. There is a great deal of judgment within the calculations, so there would be problems pretending that it is totally scientific and numerically led. Of course, the Government have moved from a single figure to a banding system, about which we will say more during the debate on the next clause. However, even if something falls into one of the bands, it is still ultimately the judgment—not the score—that puts it there. That point must be clarified. It is important that the Minister puts that on the record, because it will be fundamental to how the system is introduced and administered. 
 Although we now have the version 2 guidance, I should like the Minister to make it clear that the Government are taking a flexible approach to operation. In an earlier response to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), the Minister said that it was important to show that there is certainty in the framework. I agree. However, we want flexibility within certainty. In other words, if the version 2 guidance tell us that the system is not up to snuff, and the Government have the powers under the Bill that I think they do, we should ensure that the system can be tweaked in the light of the experience of the implementation of version 2. 
 There are other points to be made about the system, but I shall make them in relation to other clauses. I shall focus on the principal issues arising from the shift from the old fitness standards to the new rating system. If the Minister can reassure the Committee that it is not just a calculations-based system, we should, in principle, let the clause stand part of the Bill.

Brian Iddon: I warmly welcome the introduction of the housing health and safety rating system. I am sure that most people agree that it is a big improvement on the existing housing fitness system. I particularly welcome the emphasis on safety as well as health and the introduction in more than 24 categories to which inspectors will have to pay attention of items such as lead pipes, asbestos, radiation, carbon monoxide, and so on.
 Section 606 of the Housing Act 1985, which requires local authorities to submit a written report to the authority on the unfitness of properties and the potential for clearance of those properties, and requires the authority to consider the reports, will be repealed and replaced by clause 4 of this Bill, which we shall discuss later. That only requires local authority officers to inspect premises on receipt of a complaint from a justice of the peace, or a parish or community council. My right hon. Friend the Minister has already explained to a small degree how that would work. 
 I am mainly concerned about the costs, which are highlighted in the regulatory impact assessment of the Bill and reported on page 29 of the Library research document. It states that 
''The annual total cost, in England and Wales, of works carried out''
 by local authorities to meet the requirements of the new HHSRS scheme 
''is estimated as approximately £260m, at 2001 prices.''
 Costs under the present housing fitness arrangements are £470 million. There is a staggering difference of £210 million, with the sum decreasing from present to future. I am concerned about that, but there might be a simple explanation for it, and that is what I seek. 
 To put the point another way, over a 30-year period the net present value of complying with the new scheme is calculated to be £4.8 million, compared with £8.7 million for the housing fitness standards. That is a considerable difference. I hope that we will not spend a lot less on the needs of people who live in poor-standard housing. 
 I am sorry if I have put my right hon. Friend on the spot. I can wait for the answer to my question if he has not got it for me now. However, I am concerned about those figures.

John Hayes: I shall raise three issues at this juncture. First, I will say a few words about the contribution of the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon). He makes an important point, which was not lost on the Opposition when we were studying the documents to which he referred. We will have another opportunity to discuss the matter, as there are later amendments on issues relating to the training and resourcing of local authorities to deal with enforcement matters. However, there is an incredible quality to the savings projected in the documents, and that raises a concern, which the hon. Gentleman articulated, about whether there will be adequate resources for us to make improvements, rather than stand still—or, indeed, move in the wrong direction.
 The second issue relates to the comments made by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. There is a problem relating to specificity. There is a tension between having an appropriate discretion to deal with matters with sensitivity—I am sure that those responsible for enforcing the measures will want to exercise that—and having a system that is sufficiently clear that everyone understands what they have to do to enforce it, and those at the other end of process understand what is being forced upon them. In this morning's sitting the Minister for Housing and Planning talked about objectivity and transparency, but that transparency is best delivered by a system that is clear and easily understood, and in which things are well defined. The numerical system that has been proposed might satisfy those entirely proper concerns. 
 Although I take on board the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, having examined the matter and the relevant documents, and having received the briefing that was made available to hon. Members, I am inclined to be in favour of a clear numerical system that everyone understands and that can be applied with consistency. I say that not least because while it is important that there is discretion to take account of local circumstances, it would worry me if different local authorities dealing with the same 
 landlord but different houses were applying entirely different systems. Although it is important to be flexible, there is a strong case for consistency. On Second Reading, I said that it would be unacceptable if a landlord with houses in several different areas were subject to a range of different regimes. We can discuss that when we come on to later parts of the Bill on licensing and so forth. 
 That point also applies to fitness standards. It would be inappropriate if there were a wide range of fitness standards that are applied in different ways by different authorities. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was implying that, and he certainly was not advocating it. However, it may be the consequence of his well meaning but perhaps misplaced concerns.

Edward Davey: Let me be clear. I think that the numerical framework is helpful in terms of providing direction and a system that aims to be transparent and fair for different properties and different landlords. I do not think that achieves that aim, but my real concern is that if decisions were to rest simply on the numerical score, the result would be a charter for lawyers. It would also prevent the professional judgment of environment health officers on the ground from being exercised. Yes, we need the new system to ensure transparency and fairness, but ultimately we need to allow a trained professional to exercise discretion about which property is put into what band. Can the Minister reassure us about that?

John Hayes: I am always anxious to be fair to the Liberals, despite my instinct not to be. The hon. Gentleman made a sensible point about considering the response to the evaluation of version 1, which is detailed in the consultation enforcement guidance document that is available to us. It deals specifically with the experience of local authorities in applying hazard assessments. If the hon. Gentleman remembers, the professionals who are involved in trialling such an approach expressed concerns about lacking ''confidence in scoring hazards.'' Although on the surface, that argument seems in support of the hon. Gentleman's argument, it may underline a simple lack of confidence in assessing hazards. That is a new area for some officers who will be involved in such matters. I do not underestimate the change in culture that will be required or the retraining. Furthermore, the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East referred to the resource implications.
 I come now to my third point, although the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton has made it more quickly. I refer to assessing how such matters bed down. We are becoming more sophisticated about the way in which we assess housing and how we judge fitness, so the changes are appropriate. To repeat what I said this morning, however, given their complexity and the trial that they will undoubtedly be put under, it is important that matters are reviewed so that, if necessary, adjustments and changes can be made. 
 This stand part debate gives us an opportunity to press the Minister on such matters. We want him to give us a more clear response. His first answer to my intervention was lamentable. I am glad that you were 
 not in the Chair to hear it, Mr. Pike. He said, ''The Government review everything.'' Crumbs, my son could have come up with that response—and he is only three. The right hon. Gentleman's second answer was slightly better than that. He said that perhaps it was appropriate to look again at such matters. He gave us a generous, but slightly woolly, assurance. 
 Perhaps under pressure from the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton and others on his Benches who have made thoughtful comments about the clause, the right hon. Gentleman might give us a firmer undertaking than that. Given the proper spirit of good will that has underpinned our contributions to the debate and the general view in Committee that the move is helpful although testing, we might receive a formal pledge that the Government will undertake a proper review in which the matters can be discussed intelligently, and make the appropriate changes to ensure that the provisions work properly.

Robert Syms: I shall be brief. I support what the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East said about costings. If they have not done so already, perhaps the Minister's civil servants will look at page 29 of the Library brief about respective costs. Perhaps I am being cynical, but it is difficult to believe that the new system will save money over the old system, especially when we read the complexities in the documentation that we have been given. The Committee needs to receive a few more figures on the likely compliance cost and the cost on local authorities.
 We have been told that the Government have committed themselves to funding fully any new burdens, but we are not entirely sure what those burdens are. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister said that it had no firm estimate of the likely cost of administering the new system, although its regulatory impact assessment comes up with certain figures. The figures in the Library brief are quite startling. The brief sets out the cost of the proposed system as against that of the existing system, and suggests that over a period there will be savings of nearly £4 billion—presumably to landlords rather than to local authorities, although perhaps not. 
 It is difficult to know what is the most appropriate part of the Bill under which to mention the matter, although no doubt it will be apposite to do so when we are talking about local enforcement and some of the charges that local government will have to levy. The subject needs to be fleshed out a little more; otherwise, our friends in local government will beat me over the head with a telephone directory and say, ''You went through the whole Bill, and look at what it's going to cost Poole'' and ''You allowed the Minister to get away without giving us some decent figures on what the system will cost us.'' The reality is that we do not have enough information to make a judgment. If we are to hold the Government to funding the new burdens fully, we need more figures and information on cost and compliance cost.

Keith Hill: Let me begin by expressing my gratitude for the broad support for the new system extended by the hon. Members for Kingston and Surbiton and for South Holland and The Deepings. The hon. Member
 for Kingston and Surbiton asked what he described as a question about process. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings asked about the clarity of the system and the process. I absolutely agree with him about the need for consistency of application of the regime; that reflects the importance of guidelines and training.
 In response to the questions about process, let me take the Committee through the procedure. Rather like Max Bygraves, I want to tell the Committee a little story. [Interruption.] I think that I have rather revealed my age with that observation. The vast majority of the Committee are far too young to recognise that name. 
 I ask the Committee to imagine the process by which the environmental health officer or the surveyor inspects premises. The Committee is probably clear by now that action by the representative of the local authority will be based on a three-stage consideration. First, there is the hazard rating, determined under the health and safety rating system. Secondly, there is consideration of whether the authority has a duty or power to act, which is determined by the presence of a hazard above or below a threshold prescribed by regulations—category 1 and 2 hazards. Thirdly, there is whether the judgment is the most appropriate means of dealing with the hazard, which was raised by both hon. Gentlemen. 
 The purpose of the assessment is not to set a standard but to generate objective information in order to determine and inform enforcement decisions. The health and safety rating system assesses—and let me slightly correct my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East, who is highly expert on the subject—29 categories of housing hazard. The system provides a rating for each hazard. It does not provide a single rating for the dwelling as a whole or, in the case of multiply occupied dwellings, for the building as a whole. 
 A hazard rating is expressed through a numerical score that falls into a band, and there are 10 bands. Scores in bands A to C are category 1 hazards, and in bands D to J are category 2 hazards. The thresholds between bands D and C is 1,000, or an equivalent risk of death over a year of 1:1,000. The hazards that can be assessed include the major hazards found in the home: damp, cold, radon, fire and falls. The health and safety rating system assessment is based on the risk to the potential occupant who is most vulnerable to that hazard. For example, stairs constitute a greater risk to the elderly, so that group of people is considered the most vulnerable in assessing stair hazards. The very young are susceptible to low temperatures, as are the elderly. A dwelling that is safe for both those groups, who are most vulnerable, is safe for all. The surveyor gathers the facts. 
 The hazard is scored using the details of any deficiencies. That requires two judgments to be made: first, on the likelihood of an occurrence that could result in harm over the next 12 months; and secondly, on the range of possible outcomes. The assessment takes account of the average likelihood of a hazard occurring in a particular type of dwelling. The range of 
 outcomes extends from death or serious injury to visits to the doctor for persistent but non-threatening conditions. Classes of harm are weighted. 
 For the benefit of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, the inspector uses his or her professional judgment to relate the circumstances that they find to the average circumstances for that type of dwelling, and to ascertain how far above or below the average are the conditions in that dwelling. The hazard score is the sum of the weightings for each class of harm, multiplied by the likelihood of an occurrence and the set of percentages showing the spread of harms. That is set out in chapter 3 of version 2 of the HHSRS guidance. In assessing the severity of a fall hazard, the surveyor will consider the steepness of the flight of stairs, whether there is a handrail and any defects to it, and whether there are other defects in the vicinity of the stairs. The inspector will consider the impact of a fall on an elderly person, and find out whether the surface is hard or giving and whether there is glass. 
 The courses of action that are available to authorities where they have either a duty or power to act are as follows: to serve an improvement notice, which performs a similar function to a repair notice; to make a prohibition order, which closes the whole or part of a dwelling, restricts the number of permitted occupants or suspends those types of notice; to serve a hazard awareness notice; and to make a demolition order or declare a clearance area. The hazard rating is based on the most vulnerable potential occupant. Authorities will be able to take account of the vulnerability of the actual occupant in deciding the best course of action to take to deal with the hazard. The system will ensure that all the hazards that are typically found in a house can be assessed, thereby enabling the authorities to prioritise and target the most serious hazards that it finds in the local stock. That is a proportionate response. As a consequence, landlords will not be asked to carry out unnecessary work. 
 Let me say a little more about judgment reports and flexibility. I should like to emphasise that the environmental health officer's assessment of the property, which will generate a score, will be based on their professional judgment of the condition. We do not accept that that approach is flawed. The population base data are provided to inform the judgments; they provide national averages for likelihoods and outcomes of a particular property type. The officer will undertake the assessment of the property based on its condition and use the data to produce a score based on his or her judgment. We do not agree that it is impossible to apply the research findings to practical decision making. The data are produced on the best evidence available. 
 Environmental health officers who currently, and predominantly, carry out existing fitness standards have to make judgments based on an assessment of condition. That requires an understanding of cause and effect. We are not asking them to make quantitative judgments; that is a function of the health and safety rating system scoring stage. The professional judgments should be qualitative and informed by the hazard scores. I assure the hon. 
 Member for Kingston and Surbiton that we are confident that an enforcement decision based on assessments made under the system can be defended in court. 
 I have dealt with that matter at some length—but in response to hon. Members' questions on the process. I hope that my reply has been helpful.

Edward Davey: The Minister was helpful. I should like to clarify whether the Government's consultants who reviewed the system, DTZ Pieda Consulting, made it clear that when evidence went to court it should be primarily descriptive rather than numeric, so that the officer would explain to the court the nature of the hazard. It is important, given Pepper v. Hart, to press the Minister. Would the court be focused on the description of the hazard provided by the officer, or should the court be more minded to take account of the numeric value that the officer had calculated?

Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman tempts me, but I have a degree of trepidation in presuming to make a judgment about the way in which the courts would respond to such an issue. I am not a legal person. However, my understanding is that it is the role of the courts to make a judgment about the reasonableness of behaviour. On this question I defer to my legal colleagues, at least on this side of the Committee Room. If they decide to intervene in my support I shall be extremely grateful; I hope that otherwise they will remain silent. That is the basis on which the court is likely to make a judgment. If I were to venture an answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, it would be upon description rather than the score that the court would make a judgment. However, that is an absolutely tentative response on my part.

Edward Davey: I am not trying to score a debating or political point; I just want to know the answer. I understand why the Minister chooses his words very carefully. However, it is pretty important, both in this clause stand part debate and when we discuss clause 2, to be clear about what the Government intend. If more weight is given to the numerical value, we risk seeing clever barristers unpicking the calculations, looking at average population criteria and all the rest that is wrapped up in the guidance—no disrespect to barristers, such as the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird)—possibly causing local authority lawyers to go to great expense, increasing the cost of the system. It is very important that we have clarity on this issue; otherwise, we could be creating real problems in terms of implementation.

Keith Hill: In at least one respect I can set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. In due course we will table amendments that will change the judicial process, as it were, from the court system—extremely expensive, as he rightly says—to what we hope will be a more expert and cost-effective body, namely the residential property tribunal; but more of that later.
 I confess that I am slightly winging it here. I shall now consider the circumstances in which the action will proceed through the judicial or quasi-judicial process. It would be about the appropriateness of the enforcement action. That action would be based on 
 the identification of a danger in a property. Essentially, that would be based on the culmination of the process I described earlier. The culmination of that process—of the inspector, surveyor or environmental health officer going into the property—is his or her judgment. 
 I believe that the court, or whatever, would make its judgment on the basis of the propriety of the description and not of the score. If I am wrong about this—although I have encouraging indications from the silent ones, to whom one hardly dare refer—I will confess my error to the hon. Gentleman and to the Committee. 
 The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings pressed me again on the issue of review. He found my earlier response to be, in that grand parliamentary phrase, made up of weasel words. I am not sure that he will find my response now very different. I assure him that we will continue to review the system and monitor how it works out, with a view to making adjustments. In due course, it may be appropriate to add hazards to the list. However, as for a formal, proper review with a report to Parliament, no, I will not make such an undertaking at this stage. Nevertheless, I assure him that we will keep a very careful eye on the process. If changes have to be made, we will make them and report them to the House in one way or another. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East and the hon. Members for South Holland and The Deepings and for Poole (Mr. Syms) raised questions of cost. While I have been describing the health and safety rating system, inspiration has winged its way to me and I am now in a position to attempt at least an answer to the question of the costs to local authorities under the new system compared with the fitness standard. I think that I am right in saying this to my hon. Friend: the costs that he quotes—from the Library note, I think—relate to the compliance costs for landlords, not to the operational costs. Compliance costs are estimated to be lower, because hazards are often inexpensive to put right. For example, a window catch or frame may be enough. We estimate that the start-up costs for authorities are between £4 million and £5 million. That is for training and the kit, which may involve IT or be paper-based. We anticipate that the ongoing costs will be about the same and we have said that we will make the appropriate allocation to local authorities as part of the local government financial settlement.

John Hayes: Let me be absolutely clear about the financial issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole has helpfully passed me some inspiration too—if that is the euphemism that we are to use. As I glance again at page 29 of the Library paper, I am surprised by what the Minister has said about compliance costs. The paper does say that
''the cost of complying''
 with the new standards 
''is calculated as £4.8bn, as compared to £8.7bn''.
 It goes on to talk about the costs to local authorities. I want to get this absolutely clear. The Minister tells us that compliance with the new standards will represent 
 a massive saving to landlords, so the new fitness standards will be much less expensive for people to implement. That rings a few alarm bells. I do not want landlords to pay any more than they should—heaven forbid; I used to be one myself. However, we are being told that the new system will cost landlords a fraction of the cost of the old one, and I am concerned about that. Is the implication that there will be some deterioration? I think that that would be the public's view, if they were to discover these things by reading the record of the debate—which they surely will, in great detail and with real enthusiasm.

Keith Hill: I feel that I need to respond to that, as it appears that my own Department's regulatory impact assessment is quoted in those figures.
 We are not in the business of reducing the necessary investment that we expect landlords to make with regard to the condition of their properties; that goes without saying. Nevertheless—I make this point as a possible explanation for the figures, assuming that they are accurate—we have always said that the new system provides a more targeted and selective approach to dealing with hazards in building. It is important to remember that one weakness of the old fitness test standard was the fact that it required the identification of one or other of the nine defects and prescribed a series of responses but—this was the crucial difference between the old system and the new—it did not relate the hazard to the occupant of the premises. We will say a lot more about that. To that extent, the new system has a less broad-brush approach to dealing with hazard. It is more precise. It identifies the impact of a hazard on the occupant, and it might therefore produce fewer costs for landlords. 
 We believe that the report refers to the cost of works carried out, not to local authority costs. We think that it states what I have maintained, which is that dealing with hazards can be reasonably inexpensive. As I have said, it is our contention that the new system provides more discussion to tailor work. I am grateful for that further item of inspiration, which largely points up what I was able to work out myself. 
 The hon. Gentleman has raised an important issue, and it is incumbent on me to offer a more detailed response. I undertake to do so in due course, if the Committee will be patient. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 - Meaning of ''category 1 hazard'' and

John Hayes: I beg to move amendment No. 175, in
clause 2, page 3, line 17, after second 'the', insert 'immediate'. 
 [R] Relevant registered interest declared.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No. 174, in 
clause 2, page 3, line 19, at end insert— 
 '(1A) In calculating the seriousness of hazards, the individual level of disability shall be taken into account.'.
 No. 176, in 
clause 2, page 3, line 24, leave out 'the case may be' and insert 
 'clearly defined by the appropriate national authority'.
 No. 216, in 
clause 2, page 3, line 27, at end insert— 
 '(3A) Before laying any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State shall have laid before Parliament a report setting out the results of a pilot testing the latest version of the prescribed method for calculating category 1 and category 2 hazards.'.
 No. 177, in 
clause 2, page 3, line 31, after 'mental', insert ', physical and environmental'.
 No. 184, in 
clause 5, page 5, line 8, after second 'a', insert 'clearly defined'.
 No. 185, in 
clause 6, page 5, line 41, after '5', insert 
 'where the local housing authority deems a clearly defined category 1 hazard exists'.
 No. 186, in 
clause 7, page 6, line 17, after 'a', insert 'clearly defined'.

John Hayes: We have come to clause 2 with appropriate alacrity. It happily brings us to a discussion that stems directly from the previous one. That seems logical, but it is important to rehearse the Minister's earlier point. He said that the important change under part 1 of the Bill was to make it person-centred. I prefer the description ''man-centred'', but perhaps ''person'' is the politically correct term if not the generic one. The person-centred approach marries considerations about the property with considerations about the people who occupy it. The right hon. Gentleman also said that the system should be objective and transparent. He said that those were the two great changes. On one hand, the change is to be person-centred, while on the other it is to be transparent and objective. That is a neat turn of phrase. It well summarises the intentions of the Government and that is made clear in the detailed documents that we have all studied.
 The group of amendments does two things. It probes the Minister to be more specific, in the interests of transparency and objectivity, about the balance between category 1 and category 2 hazards. He has been more specific to some extent by describing the process in his useful remarks at the end of the first clause stand part debate. However, there is a need for greater clarity about the difference between a category 1 hazard and a category 2 hazard, because of the repercussions of each. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have a chance to clarify matters. Several of the amendments are designed to elicit greater clarification. 
 Amendment No. 175, in particular, gives us the opportunity to study in some detail the people-centred aspects of a hazard and risk assessment. I understand precisely why the Government have chosen an 
 approach whose essence is to base the people-centred assessment on age but, as I told the Minister before our sitting, I have certain worries about it. Such an approach has the advantage of simplicity, but there is more to it than that. It is rooted in good evidence that typically, as people grow older, they become subject to more risks. We need not study rocket science to work out that, as people become old, they often become less able. Sometimes they become less capable of dealing with various risks that are associated with housing. 
 Such an approach is laudable but unsatisfactory. My amendment suggests that we move from an analysis based solely on age to an analysis based on ability or disability, so that the system can be implemented with greater confidence. We can define ability and disability without a significant overlap with age. People often become less able as they become older, but that is not exclusively the case. We can define matters in a way that allows the analysis of hazard and the enforcement measures to be completed in a more targeted and effective way. 
 The Minister described the importance of targeting when he was defending the financial aspects of the information that has been provided to members of the Committee about as persuasively as Max Bygraves would have done in Committee. His description of the numerical analysis was a little like the Max Bygraves rendition of ''Deck of Cards'', in which the four stood for the evangelists and the three for the Trinity. I could go on, but I do not want to become too biblical. In the interests of clarity and targeting, it is important that we reach the people who are most at risk. Disabled people may not be old; old people may not be less able. The marriage between people's behaviour and habit and their culture that prevails when they are exposed to risk requires a more sensitive, targeted approach. 
 For example, we know that mentally disabled people are critical of the quality and appropriateness of their housing. Members of the Committee will be familiar with the parliamentary briefing on wheelchair users that we received from the John Grooms housing association. It suggested that about 40 per cent. of wheelchair users believed that the place in which they lived was inappropriate for them because it was not well adapted to their needs. We know that other disabled people are at particular risk from a range of hazards that are described in the new document. The guidance that has been provided to implement the new standards deals specifically with mental health and psychological implications of various conditions that might prevail in housing. In many ways, the guidance seems to apply outside the narrow boundary of how old someone is. Surely we can be more intelligent, more targeted and more specific in how we deal with the analysis of the types of people who are most likely to be at risk from the hazards that we define as a result of the new information.

Edward Davey: The current system examines a particular risk and assesses it with regard to the most vulnerable person who may come across such a risk, such as a stair problem for an elderly person or damp conditions for a young baby. Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that, in all categories of analysis, the most vulnerable person should be someone with a disability?
 If so, what level of disability does he mean? However, given his use of the word ''targeted'', is he saying that, when the environment health officer examines the property occupied by a person with a disability, there should be a different way to assess the property for that occupant?

John Hayes: I mean the second of the two examples to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It is important to focus on ability or disability. I am not using the word ''disability'' in the sense that he is assuming that I am. I am not speaking only of disabled people. I am talking about people whose ability or disability in relation to a hazard may impact on their risk. Let us consider an elderly person living in a very well adapted home—perhaps relatively modern accommodation or a bungalow without stairs with all the necessary elements put in place to ensure that the person's life is as safe and convenient as possible. That person is certainly at less risk than a young person in a very old property that, based on the criteria before us today, does not satisfy reasonable modern safety standards. That situation is borne out by the information available to the Committee as well as other information that is available to the whole House. Yet because of the way in which the Government have taken age profile as the key criterion in the people-centred aspect of their approach, that would not necessarily count for a great deal.
 I want the Government to come up with a way of measuring ability or disability that allows us to target the guidance at different groups in the population that may be vulnerable. It is true that elderly people are often vulnerable, but many other groups are vulnerable too. It is important that we take account of that when implementing the new methodology. I would make the approach more effective to allow us to target better and make it easier for local authorities to enforce the new standards. 
 I raised that matter when we were briefed on the subject and spoke to one of the academics involved in drawing up the new guidance. The essence of the response that I received, on which the Minister may want to elucidate, was that because of the complexity of what I have described, it was necessary to pick something to define the people at greatest risk, for the purposes of simplicity and to get something on the record—to make a start, as it were. Age was the thing to choose because, as I said, there is a correlation between age and risk. My worry about that approach is that it will miss out important sections of the population and important people in different communities, so it may be too crude an instrument.

Sally Keeble: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there are other ways of dealing with the other disabilities, such as by providing aids, adapting properties and allocating property properly to ensure that people get the right type for them to use? Therefore it is right to confine the hazard assessment to the broad categories, based on age and the most general elements of hazard.

John Hayes: Yes, indeed, there are other ways of dealing with the problem. I commend to the hon. Lady the excellent document produced by McCarthy & Stone plc, ''A Better Life: Private Sheltered Housing
 and Independent Living for Older People''. She may have already read it. It makes it clear that there are many other ways of dealing with the issue. Sheltered housing is an effective way of providing appropriate accommodation that, at its best, minimises hazard and reduces risk. That is because it deals with the very issues identified in the provisions, such as fire risks, electrical problems, inappropriate staircases, damp, cold and all the other things that we know are of particular concern to older people because, as I said, of their propensity to illness or to be less able.
 Of course, there are other ways of dealing with the issue, but at the very heart of what we are being asked to consider and approve in Committee is the people-centred approach that the Minister identified, which the Government chose to found on a measurement that is relatively simple—one might say happily simple, or one might say sadly crude. They used the measure of age rather than a proper assessment of ability and disability that would draw in people with learning difficulties, those in other circumstances and those with a severe or chronic illness that had a real impact on their ability or disability, and therefore on their susceptibility to hazard and risks. We really need to make a proper assessment. 
 As the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said when he asked about my argument, we are not talking about a simple suggestion that we count disabled people only, but a suggestion that we come to a better judgment on measuring ability or disability for the purposes of making the system work. That is at the heart of the group of amendments. They are designed to help, in that they in no way attempt to frustrate the Bill's intentions; indeed, they would make the measures more appropriate and effective. Nor are they designed to do anything other than what the Minister recommended, which is to enhance the objectivity and transparency of the system that the Government implement. They are not unhelpful, but vital amendments. 
 If we are to set off down the road of the cultural change that I described earlier, it would be as well to do so properly at the outset. If we go down the road of measuring people's ability principally on the basis of age, the danger is that we shall never move beyond that. We were told that to do so was a good and appropriate start, and that it had the advantage of clarity, but there is a real risk that we shall not re-examine the issue with a view to improving how we measure ability. Given that local government officers will have a cultural change, that we shall have all sorts of difficulties, and that there are issues to do with cost, training and implementation, we must get it right. I have principally spoken about amendment No. 175, and I believe that it, in particular, will enable us to do that. 
 Other amendments in the group are largely designed to tease out from the Minister a little more detail about the different types of hazard and their implications. I hope that he will do that.

Edward Davey: I rise to move amendment No. 216—

Peter Pike: Order. You can speak to it but you cannot move it.

Edward Davey: Thank you, Mr. Pike. I will speak to amendment No. 216. It would prevent any regulations under proposed section (3A) being laid before Parliament until we were sure that version 2 had been properly piloted and the problems had been ironed out.
 The Government have undertaken a lot of consultation and analysis in order to get us to this point. However, unfortunately, version 1 of the system was found by their own consultants and various practitioners in the field to have a number of problems. Therefore, the Government have come up with version 2; they published their unfinalised draft version of the guidance last month. That shows that we are at a relatively early stage in getting to grips with version 2. We have not tried it out in the field. We have not discovered whether some of the many practical problems that were experienced with version 1 have been solved. Although lessons have been learned from what happened to version 1 and there have been some improvements, there are still many questions to ask. 
 The Minister might throw back the following statement: ''We have been waiting for this for a long time, so let's get a move on.'' However, I am not asking for a long delay. By the time that the Bill passes through both Houses, receives Royal Assent and some of the regulations are in a form to be laid before the House, we could be well under way with the pilots and beginning to assess the results. In practice, the delay that I am asking for may last a few months; I am not asking for a wait of four years. If this House is to agree to the new system, it is important that it be reassured that the system can work. If version 1 had worked, I would not be as concerned. However, version 1 did not work. Therefore, we need to ensure that version 2 is practical. I am not the only person who has concerns about version 2; so do people from the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health and elsewhere. They and I are in favour of the basic thrust of the system. We are not trying to undermine it. 
 During the clause 1 stand part debate, the Committee discussed a point that is particularly relevant to some of the amendments and to clause 2(1): the issue between numerical score and judgment. Even with some of the amendments that have been proposed, we are still pushed towards taking the numerical route in clause 2. 
 Although the Minister's answer to the last debate was helpful, what he said—that the ultimate judgment is at the discretion and as a result of the professional expertise of the environmental officer—is not in the Bill. What will appear in due course when we consider the regulations are calculations and numerical scores. There is concern about that key part of the Government system that has not been tried. It is important that the House gets a chance to look at a report on whether it works before the regulations are implemented. That would be a good safety measure to include in the Bill. 
 I shall briefly talk to some of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings. He makes a good point about disability. It is understandable that the groups representing people with disabilities are concerned about whether the new system can be used to deal with some of the problems experienced by disabled people. Although I understand that, I agree with the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble): there might be better ways to get a better outcome for people with disabilities than to bolt on to the system something that has not been designed for it. That is why I asked the hon. Gentleman a question on that—although I suspect that I did not make myself clear enough. Even under his version of the system, which he says will work, one chooses the most vulnerable person for the particular hazard. He wants that to be judged on the degree of ability or disability. However, the Minister is talking about the ages of young and elderly people. 
 The problem with going down the disabled route, however that is defined, is that there will not be all the necessary population data. We would be talking about a much smaller sample of the population than is the case with age, for which there are many people with disabilities in different parts of the spectrum. The system would have difficulty producing the consistent, transparent results that we want. To use disability for that purpose would be to destroy the system's underlying rationale and logic. 
 I am speaking off the top of my head—I have not thought about this properly—but I wonder whether it would be possible to modify the system for occupancy. The system would generally work as it is described in the guidance, with the most vulnerable person, whether they were elderly or young, as the potential occupant. Perhaps a different set of measurements, likelihoods and so on could be applied to the enforcement officer's consideration of a property that is occupied by someone with a disability. 
 I say that cautiously—I am not necessarily proposing it—because there are potential dangers. Landlords might discriminate against disabled people, so one must be careful. However, if one thinks about that idea, one sees the difficulty of using the system for purposes for which it was not designed. That brings me back to what the hon. Member for Northampton, North said. Perhaps we should tackle such problems differently. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings has done the Committee a service in raising ideas that help us think round the best way to approach the subject.

Robert Syms: I speak in support of the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings and of some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton.
 On hazard and risk, as I understand it, the environmental health officer will survey a property using 29 categories, come to a judgment and measure that against the average type of dwelling in the area. The benchmark, about which the Minister has spoken, seems to be that a property fit for people who are old or very young—those categories at both ends of the 
 spectrum—would be safe for all. At that point, there would be a scoring mechanism and a local authority might look at a property and determine whether to take action. 
 To return to what the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said, is it likely that if there were two fit, 20-something men in a chilly, cold property that was inappropriate for a baby, the local authority would still take action on improving it, irrespective of the fact that they can live in it? The legislation seems to leave much to the discretion of local authorities. Our discussion under clause 1 about possible savings also included talk about the discretion to decide whether to implement provisions. Would the local authority say, ''Yes, this is a very draughty, nasty flat. It would not be appropriate for a baby, but there is no particular problem for the people living in it, so we will not pursue this issue''? That is what I am trying to tease from the Minister. 
 Discretion will be applied at some point. Once there is a scoring system using the benchmark of the elderly, the young child or the baby, it is incumbent on the local authority to determine what action follows. Surely the real tenants rather than who the tenants could be would inform its action? Theoretically, the system should be the same for an actual or a potential tenant. In reality, however, will a local authority invest an awful lot of time trying to enforce an order against a landlord if it does not believe there to be any great risk to healthy 20-something-year-old men in a property? Surely its priority would be those who are most vulnerable? 
 Let us consider, say, three properties. Fit people live in property No. 1, which is draughty and cold, and there are difficulties in meeting the criteria. Fit people live in property No. 2. A very elderly person who is asthmatic and has a family with young children happens to live in property No. 3, and, if the system were working, that is where one would expect the focus to be. 
 I am trying to tease from the Minister how the system would operate, and at what point discretion would be used. Would there be discretion or not? It comes down to this: a landlord with a property that may be a little draughty, who does not want to spend a lot of money investing in it by installing central heating, may be tempted to say, ''I won't have a family in here with young kids, or someone very elderly, because someone may report that the property is inappropriate, the environmental health officer will come along, and I'll have to invest a lot of money in it. I'll look for someone to put in it who'll be less trouble.'' 
 There is that risk and concern, which the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton put his finger on, so we need to tease a little more from the Minister about discretion and the scoring system. How will things work in practice when the local authority sees tenants who may be fit and perfectly capable, at least for a time, of living in a property that according to the scoring method is substandard, and has to decide whether to take enforcement action?

John Hayes: My hon. Friend has put the case very succinctly—beyond my wildest ambitions. His point is about varying levels of vulnerability. It is true that old people and young children may be typically vulnerable, as he suggested. There are, however, many other vulnerable groups in the community, and we need an absolute assurance that they will be targeted appropriately to ensure that they are not at significant risk because the system is too crude to catch them. That is precisely what my hon. Friend suggested so cogently. If I am not mistaken, that is the essence of the debate and of our amendments on ability and disability. Perhaps we should have said ''vulnerability'' rather than ''disability.''

Robert Syms: My hon. Friend is right; vulnerability is very important. I have made my point, and I hope that the Minister gets the drift of it.

Edward Davey: I agree with the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings that the hon. Member for Poole made his point extremely well. He is showing us where the balance is to be struck. If the inspector takes the actual occupant into account, there is a possibility that the landlord might never think of letting to anyone who did not fall into the category of a young, fit person. From another point of view, however, the landlord might say, ''If you are going to make me spend money to make this property fit for the most vulnerable person, even though I intend to let to young, fit, able men, I will not bother to rent out properties.'' We may see a reduction in the private rental sector. I hope that the Minister can give assurances that such decisions are fundamentally at the discretion of the environmental health officer, who can take into account the actual occupant, not just the potential occupant.

Robert Syms: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Local authorities do not have vast numbers of environmental health officers. In some local authorities there are many substandard properties, which will have to be prioritised, and the authority will inevitably prioritise for those who are most vulnerable. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the points raised.

Keith Hill: Before I deal with the details raised by the hon. Gentlemen, let me begin by reminding the Committee of the provisions of clause 2. It provides for the components of the new system to be prescribed in regulations. Those are: first,
''the method for calculating the seriousness of hazards'';
 secondly, the descriptions of hazards; thirdly, the bands into which hazards may fall depending on their seriousness; and fourthly, the numerical scores which determine the bands into which the hazards fall. 
 Clause 2(1) defines ''hazard'' for the purposes of part 1 as: 
''any risk of harm to the health or safety of an actual or potential occupier of a dwelling or HMO which arises from a deficiency in the dwelling or HMO or in any building or land in the vicinity''.
 Examples of such deficiencies are construction faults, dangerous features such as broken banisters, inadequate heating or insulation, and a lack of repair 
 or maintenance. Clause 2(1) also defines category 1 and 2 hazards. Category 1 hazards are those that are sufficiently serious to trigger the general duty on the local authority, as described in clause 5, to 
''take the appropriate enforcement action''.
 Category 2 hazards—all other hazards—are those that trigger the powers set out in clause 7, under which a local authority will have a discretionary power to take enforcement action. 
 The assessment of a hazard has two elements. The first is the likelihood of an occurrence resulting in harm. The second is the potential outcome of that occurrence. By virtue of clause 2(3), the regulations prescribing the method will 
''take into account both the likelihood of the harm occurring and the severity of the harm if it were to occur.''
 Whether a hazard is in category 1 or 2, and whether, within those categories, it falls into band A, B, C, D or E, is a matter of the judgment of the inspector based on the evidence. 
 I shall give an example of a fall hazard. A child may fall through a low, wide window that is defective because it has no safety catch. The likelihood of falling out is no different whether the window is on the ground or the top floor of a block of flats, but of course the likely outcome would be different. The outcome will also vary depending on the surface the child might fall on to. 
 Another example is of a fire hazard. The group most vulnerable to fire is people over the age of 60, but the young are also at risk. Impairment to mobility clearly increases vulnerability in the event of a fire. The most common cause of death from a fire is smoke inhalation. An inappropriately sited heater or cooker, or defective heating, might ignite clothes drying in a room if the dwelling lacks a clothes-drying area. Disrepair to walls and the presence of non-fire-resistant materials spreads the fire. The number of floors on which the fire breaks out, and the absence of fire doors and smoke alarms are also factors that the inspector will consider. The inspector will then decide whether a hazard is, for example, in band B of category 1 or band D of category 2. 
 I have made available to the Committee copies of the current draft of version 2 of the HHSRS guidance. The document describes the method for assessing hazards, sets out the principles of scoring the hazards and placing them in bands, and lists the 29 categories of hazard covered by the system. It also gives advice on how local authorities should operate the system, how to use judgment, what they should look out for, and what can be done on the premises to remove or reduce a hazard. 
 I shall now turn to the interesting speech made by the hon. Member for Poole. He asked how the system related to the occupant. I should remind him and the Committee that the health and safety rating system is about the health and safety of the occupant, not the condition of the building. It is entirely occupant-focused. The hon. Gentleman seemed to assume that in identifying the likelihood of a dangerous incident, the inspector would make a judgment based on the occupant of premises at the time. As we debate the 
 Bill, the fact will emerge that the inspector will be able to stipulate the condition that if the nature of the occupants changes, the enforcement procedure will be expected to kick in. 
 I suspect that during our debates we will hear more than once about the problems of student accommodation, and the classic example is that the risk to a house full of students is different from that likely to be incurred in a dwelling occupied by an elderly person. Let us consider the steepness of staircases for example. On the whole, students might be expected to cope better with steep staircases, and if an accident occurred, a young, able-bodied person would be able to survive it more satisfactorily than an elderly or very young person.

John Hayes: Will the Minister give way?

Geraldine Smith: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Keith Hill: I shall give way first to the hon. Gentleman, and then my hon. Friend.

John Hayes: The Minister said that the system will be occupant-focused, which I understand. He then gave a pertinent example of the likely outcomes of various hazards applied to different people. The essence of my amendment is to say that although that is true on the whole—to use the Minister's words—it is not exclusively true. Other groups, including chronically sick people, disabled people and other people with permanent or temporary conditions, will be especially vulnerable, but not elderly. We need a better, more targeted approach to identify the vulnerability, which was articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole.

Keith Hill: I shall address issues of disability in due course, but that point was helpful. I hope that it will further help the Committee if I elaborate on occupancy, the risk to the occupant, and the discretion available to the inspector in the circumstances.

Geraldine Smith: I am a little concerned about the occupant focus. In Morecambe, there are a large number of flats in which live single young men who display antisocial behaviour and cause all sorts of problems. People want a better mix in those areas, as there are also older people with disabilities and families with children. Will different properties in the same area be assessed differently? Will that possibility be open simply to the interpretation of the council environmental health officer? That could cause considerable problems, with landlords challenging decisions in court. I welcome the Government's intentions—they are trying to do the right thing—but I foresee difficulties caused by the occupant focus and the discretion given to environmental health officers. In one area, different standards may apply in respect of single young men and the elderly.

Keith Hill: We would expect the identification of a life-threatening hazard in a property to provoke the various necessary actions. A range of enforcement actions is available to the local authority. I understand my hon. Friend's point about the possible response of landlords to inconsistency of approach, but I defend
 the proposals on the grounds that there is a need for inspectors and local authorities to adopt different approaches in different cases. The threat to an elderly person arising from certain kinds of physical defects is not the same as for a younger, able-bodied person. For various reasons that I hope to mention briefly, some discretion in such situations is appropriate.

Sally Keeble: Will my right hon. Friend clarify the dividing line between the proposals in question, which, even though they are occupant-focused, relate to a property's fitness standard and hazards, and an allocation system, which considers individual needs in detail and tries carefully to match up the person with the property? The edges of that question are slightly blurred, although it might be suitable to have clarification later, rather than now.

Keith Hill: I shall be happy to take up that issue later and I hope that neither my hon. Friend nor I forget that we mean to have that conversation. I am slightly reluctant to follow the path of allocations now, since I am trying to keep to the central thrust of the debate.
Mr. Syms rose—

Keith Hill: I see the hon. Member for Poole seeking to intervene. With his permission, I should like to complete a line of thought about the need for discretion that responds to the issues that he raised about burdens on landlords.
 Landlordism and the private rented sector is an interesting theme. Broadly speaking, the private rented sector is fragile, as I am sure hon. Members with greater experience of such matters than I are fully aware. Despite various efforts by a succession of Governments over the past 15 years to boost the private rented sector, on the whole there has been relatively little expansion. 
 It is fascinating to analyse ownership in the private rented sector. One discovers that some 15 per cent. of dwellings in the sector are owned by corporate or institutional organisations, whereas 65 per cent. are owned by individuals, and that the median ownership of properties for rent is four. The industry was recently characterised to me, vividly but quite accurately, as a cottage industry. For most people, the property that they rent out is not their main source of income but an investment that, on the whole, is run without the benefit of management agents. 
 In other words, the sector consists mostly of small-scale economic activity, which is important to society and the economy. We all recall the words of the Chancellor in the pre-Budget statement about the importance of the private rented sector for labour mobility, and his welcome commitment to examine the possibility of introducing real estate investment trusts. The sector is also socially important for starter housing—the first rung on the housing ladder. However, it is fragile. 
 For those reasons, I make no apology—a point made also by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton—for saying that the Government tread somewhat warily when considering the burdens that 
 we are willing to place on that sector. That is why discretionary powers need to be put into the hands of the local authority. There are some bad and irresponsible landlords, and we shall be dealing with those folk in debating later parts of the Bill, particularly when considering selective licensing and some bad examples of houses in multiple occupation. However, we need to be sensitive to the burdens that we are imposing on the sector. 
 A uniform, across-the-board requirement to restore every kind of defect in a property would probably have the effect described of encouraging people to be restrictive in their choice of tenants or to get out of the industry altogether. I hope that I have explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) why we are adopting that approach.

Geraldine Smith: I still have the concern that landlords who own seven or eight houses in my area might rent some houses to families with children, others to people with physical disabilities or mental health problems, and another to a group of single young men. That is the make-up of housing in certain parts of my constituency. Such landlords would find it hard to understand why different standards applied to each house. The danger, if the matter is open to discretion, is that housing officers may decide to go easy on the landlord because they do not want too much hassle in court and do not want to be challenged. It may weaken the legislation, and not give such residents the protection that is meant for them.

Keith Hill: My view is that landlords would on the whole welcome the sort of discretionary regime that we propose rather than find it unacceptable. I should make it absolutely clear that when there is a danger to families with young children and elderly people—I shall come to the issue of people with disabilities in a second—we expect local authorities, through environmental health officers, to respond by issuing the appropriate enforcement action. We shall obviously be looking carefully at that process.
 With the exception of amendment No. 216, this group of amendments seeks to prescribe extra elements of the components of the new system to be described in regulations. In doing so, the amendments make assumptions about the system and assume that it can absorb those further elements without losing its integrity. I am afraid that that is not the case. The point has already been made rather effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North and others. 
 Amendment No. 175 would amend the definition of hazard so as to clarify that deficiencies in buildings or land should be in the immediate vicinity. It is doubtful whether that would add anything useful. Why stipulate the immediate vicinity? It would be difficult to provide evidence that buildings or land not close to the building that contained the hazard had contributed to that hazard. Most deficiencies—dampness, faulty stairs, faulty wiring and so on—are likely to be in the building containing the hazard. However, if there were evidence of a deficiency in adjacent buildings, it would 
 be curious not to include the effects of such deficiencies in the assessment. 
 I turn to amendment No. 174. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings has temporarily abandoned his place. Even if I speak on other amendments, I am not sure whether he will have returned by the time that I have completed my remarks. However, in the spirit of generosity that has prevailed in the Committee, let me at least give him the opportunity to return. 
 Amendment No. 176 requires that the hazard bands should be 
''clearly defined by the appropriate national authority''.
 Those hazard bands will be described in regulations, and to be effective and to stand up to robust legal challenge, they will need to be clear. I will ensure that when the regulations are put before the House they will be precise about the hazard bands. 
 I am delighted to see the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings returning to the Room. I can now turn to amendment No. 174, to which he spoke with such passion. I recognise his commitment to disability issues. I respect him for that, and for his purposes in tabling the amendment, although he will not be surprised to hear that I must resist it. 
 Amendment No. 174 would require disability to be taken into account in the methodology used to determine the seriousness of hazards. There are two initial problems with that, which have been identified in the course of our exchanges. First, in the system that we are introducing, the calculation of risk depends on population averages and on property averages. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman does not define ''disability''. He has not at any point in his amendment or his remarks mentioned registered disability, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North pointed out, is subject to a separate statutory regime. 
 The hon. Gentleman's amendment fails to take account of the risk-assessment system being developed, which I described in detail a short time ago. Assessments under the health and safety rating system are based on the risk to the potential occupant most vulnerable to that risk. That has become commonplace in our exchanges. The definition of a vulnerable group under that system excludes those who could be registered as chronically sick or disabled. That is because the evidence of health risk—the evidence base on which the system depends—mainly relates to age. The guidance excludes the registered disabled because of the potential need—my hon. Friend was absolutely right—for specialist adaptations to make the dwelling suitable. Taking account of disability in statutory enforcement regimes has far-reaching implications. To add elements that cannot be supported by evidence in an evidence-based system would damage the integrity of that system and might lead to successful legal challenge.

John Hayes: The Minister is right that registered disabled people, particularly chronically and permanently disabled people, are best dealt with by a variety of means—home adaptations, typically, as suggested by the hon. Member for Northampton,
 North. However, the Minister will also know that the estimated number of disabled people in this country varies between 6.8 million and 8.5 million. A very large number of people are not registered disabled and are not chronically disabled, but may be temporarily disabled. They may have a dynamic disability of one sort or another, which is changing, and their needs may change accordingly. They may have moderate learning difficulties. They may fall into all sorts of categories. They may be temporarily very ill. They will have housing needs, be subject to hazards and be vulnerable in a way that the Bill should identify and cope with. Only by defining ability and disability using a different kind of evidence-based approach will we get to the people that we need to reach if we are to make the Bill work to best effect.

Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman will understand that I am not the least bit unsympathetic to his motives, and I do not suppose that any member of the Committee is, but the very generality of his description of the people to whom the provisions might apply and the lack of definition demonstrate the weakness of his case. It is impossible to put into statute a requirement for which there is no definition.
 That said, let us revert to the discussion about the way in which the inspector exercises judgment. As any of us would, I would expect the inspector, at the final point in considering particular premises or property, identifying the defects and making the calculation of risk and the judgment about the danger of the defect, to take the circumstances of the occupant into account, but that is about the best that one could go for. Otherwise, we would undermine the scientific or at least quasi-scientific basis and the attempt to get it right. 
 We are right to go down the road of trying to inject an objective element into the process of assessing when action needs to be taken in order to get stock into a safer condition, but we must not push it too far. We must not lay extra elements on a process that was never intended for those purposes. For all those reasons, I shall resist the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings.

Robert Syms: The Minister has been very helpful. I was trying to tease out the difference between an actual and a potential tenant, and the Minister said that conditions could be added for a particular property. My only question is whether that would be made public. If a report were written on a property saying that the heating was substandard, would that information be available to a young couple with a baby before they undertook to take that property? Would the information be on a public register or would the landlord have to provide it? That seems to be the chink in the armour. If a report were written and the property was not appropriate for a family with two young babies, such a family should know that before they take the property off the landlord.

Keith Hill: I entirely agree. An enforcement action—I think that the technical expression is a ''land charge''—would be on the public register and be a consideration in the acquisition of any of the properties. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's
 question is yes. Such information is in the public domain; it is available from the local authority.
 I do not want to detain the Committee much longer. I have certainly heard enough of my voice; even I am getting bored with it. I shall turn rapidly to the other amendments. Amendment No. 177 would add ''physical and environmental'' health to the definition of health. To add ''physical'' is unnecessary as health is defined under subsection (5) as including mental health. That does not mean that physical health is excluded. Health must include physical harm or it means nothing. Environmental health is dealt with by the health and safety rating system and is represented, for example, by hazards from pollutants. 
 Amendments Nos. 184, 185 and 186 are similar to amendment No. 176 and are not necessary. Regulations under clause 2 need to be clearly defined to ensure the efficient operation of the system. Finally, amendment No. 216 tabled by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton would require piloting of the health and safety rating system before regulations to implement it are laid before Parliament. I must say to him, however, that version 1 of the system has been available for three and a half years since July 2000. It has been well tested and lessons have been learned. 
 Version 2 does not change the fundamental principles behind the system or the methodology that the inspector needs to follow. Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that we will consult on the regulations before they are laid before Parliament, so that there will be further opportunities to fine-tune the system. I understand that some environmental health officers are a little nervous at the prospect of changing from a standards-based regime to one of risk assessment. Candidly, however, I am not willing to delay implementation. We have waited 18 years for the Bill and I am strengthened in my view by support for the speedy introduction of the housing health and safety rating system by the British Medical Association. For all of those cogent reasons, I urge the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings to withdraw his amendment.

John Hayes: Others may want to speak, but will I presume that they do not. By way of concluding this debate, I wish to say that I welcome what the Minister said about the discretion that is at heart of the proper enforcement process described in the proposals and debated in Committee. I will quote from the consultation document on enforcement guidance. He reminded us that the purpose of the assessment
''is not to set a standard but to generate objective information in order to determine and inform enforcement decisions.''
 Essentially, the numerical analysis exists to provide the data following which a decision will be made. 
 In that respect, I am grateful for the Minister's comments about consideration of other vulnerable groups, which will undoubtedly form part of that informed judgment along with the numerical criteria and other observations and considerations. Issues relating to disabled or chronically sick people, people with learning difficulties or other groups of people that 
 I have described would become evident to the officer involved in the enforcement process. I am grateful for the Minister's assurance that that such matters will be taken into account when reaching an informed judgment. Based on that assurance and to speed up matters, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - Local housing authorities to review housing conditions in their districts

John Hayes: I beg to move amendment No. 178, in
clause 3, page 3, line 34, leave out 'At least'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 217, in 
clause 3, page 3, line 34, leave out 
 'At least once in every year' 
 and insert 
 'Within a year of the implementation of this Act of Parliament.'.
 Amendment No. 179, in 
clause 3, page 3, line 34, leave out 'consider' and insert 'review'.
 Amendment No. 180, in 
clause 3, page 3, line 36, at end insert— 
 '(1A) Following the review the authority will have responsibility to make public a report on housing in their district. 
 (1B) Before any action is taken they must publish what action they will take. 
 (1C) In respect of discretionary licensing the authority should publish details of their intentions prior to their enforcement'.
 Amendment No. 218, in 
clause 3, page 3, line 36, at end insert— 
 '(1A) Subsequent to complying with (1) above, a local authority must consider the housing conditions in their district with a view to determining what action to take under the provisions mentioned in subsection (2), at least once every two years.'.
 Amendment No. 181, in 
clause 3, page 4, line 10, after 'specify', insert 
 '(c) issue an annual report'.
 Amendment No. 219, in 
clause 3, page 3, line 42, at end insert— 
 '(v) any sections as they relate to empty residential premises'.
 New clause 2—Empty Homes (Management orders)— 
'The Secretary of State will by order introduce a scheme for Empty Homes Management Orders within 12 months of Royal Assent, subject to an affirmative resolution of both Houses.'.

John Hayes: Having debated the process by which the business of assessing the housing stock will be conducted, we now move to how the local authority will do that. The amendments that I hope to persuade the Committee to accept deal with the regularity with which the authority undertakes reviews and the means by which it makes the information available to others.
 The Minister has seen amendments Nos. 178 to 180. Amendment No. 178 sets us somewhere between the Government and the Liberal Democrats, which is a happy position to be in. The Liberal Democrats want the local authority to review its housing stock occasionally—every two years, they propose. The Government are more pressing, suggesting that it should be at least an annual process. 
 We, as ever, take a measured view, sensitive to the needs of our colleagues in local government, but at the same time defending the needs of the public. Therefore, we suggest dropping the words ''at least'' and leaving the Bill stipulating that there must be a yearly review of housing stock. We say review, because the process should consist of more than a simple consideration. That brings us to the essence of the group, our amendment No. 180. I have disregarded the Liberal amendments because I do not agree with them and because I am sure that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton will speak in their defence. 
 We make two proposals in amendment No. 180. The first is that the authority should make public the report on housing in its area. Therefore, a review of housing should take place and there should be a degree of public understanding, knowledge and scrutiny of what the local authority is doing. That seems important, given some of the things that have been discussed. It will be a big change, and with it will come a comprehensive analysis of a range of issues associated with the housing in a given area. We have had long discussions about both the material condition of some properties and the relationship between those properties and the status of their occupants. Given the fundamental nature of the change and its significance—the Minister has, rightly, made great play of its importance—a degree of public involvement would be highly desirable. It is important that the review be a published document, available for inspection and subject to proper public scrutiny. That is our reason for the first part of the amendment. 
 Not only should the authority make clear what it has done to review its stock—so that people know that it is behaving properly and doing the job as well as it can be expected to do—and get a feel for the housing stock in the area, on which it might base all kinds of judgments and decisions, but it is equally important that we play fair by landlords. Lethargy is possible in a local authority—certainly not in a Conservative-controlled one, but perhaps in one that is Liberal Democrat-controlled—and so too is over-zealousness. The authority should also be responsible for scrutiny of its proposed actions. 
 The Minister was anxious to point out to the Committee that the private rented sector is fragile and that he is reticent to pile any more burdens on that sector. I well understand his argument. It is equally true that we need to reassure the private rented sector about the implications of the legislation. The Committee will be aware of the fears among landlords about some aspects of the Bill. It is not that they do not support the idea of bringing housing up to a decent standard and ensuring that the small minority of irresponsible landlords are dealt with harshly, or any other of the Bills proposals. However, 
 they are slightly worried that the power of enforcement that the Minister describes, which we have debated, and licensing—which we shall debate later and which I shall not go into now because you would not let me, Mr. Pike—will be too heavy a hand. I do not necessarily share that view, but I believe it to be important that it is articulated and taken into account by the Committee. 
 The Minister's desire to ensure that we do not discourage the private rented sector is most welcome and should reassure those in that sector that the implementation of the Bill will be equitable and measured, as he assured us it would be. It is important that local authorities reflect that sort of measured approach, and make it clear what they will do on the basis of what they have done. In other words, they must clarify what enforcement action they intend to take based on their review of their housing stock. 
 We made a judgment about public involvement and about reassuring landlords, and we were stimulated to table an amendment that would require the local authority to make public a report on housing in its district and to publish what action it intends to take before that action is taken. That would serve those dual purposes and would improve the Bill. It would make the legislation more palatable and more widely understood, and it would perhaps cut across some of the complexity with which local authorities and we are faced when dealing with this matter, and which many landlords, let alone the wider public, find incomprehensible. In those interests, and in the interests of transparency, objectivity and clarity so well articulated by the Minister, the Government would do well to embrace the amendments with enthusiasm and vigour, because I believe that they would improve the Bill.

Edward Davey: The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings seeks to put himself in the centre of British politics and to suggest that the Liberal Democrats have moved to the extreme right. I can assure him that that is not the case. On this situation we wish to—[Interruption.] Was the Minister wanting to say that he has the mantle of the far right on this Committee? I somehow doubt it.
 The purpose of amendments Nos. 217 and 218 is to encourage us to think seriously about the extra responsibilities and duties that will be placed on both local authorities and landlords. The Government propose that the review of housing conditions should take place at least once a year. I am not sure that that is right; our proposal of at least once every two years would give a better balance. It is right that we discuss this matter. In their document on freedoms and flexibilities for local government, the Government say that they are trying to remove the burdens, the regulations and the reports required, but in this case they seem to be adding a new one. 
 If our amendments are read together, it is clear that we are suggesting that within a year of the implementation of the Bill, every local housing authority will carry out a review and produce a report, so we will make rapid progress with the new system. However, after that first report has been 
 produced, it does not seem necessary to repeat that exercise every twelve months. I am not sure that the use of officer time and taxpayers' money and the burden that it might impose on landlords and on tenants are justified. 
 I would like to understand why the Government have chosen that approach. We do not seek to undermine the system; we embrace it and support it. However, we ask how often the reviews of housing conditions in a local authority area are really needed. Important as they are, I do not think that they are needed once a year—that seems slightly over the top. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings may think that I am moving far to the right with that statement, but I am trying to occupy the centre ground.

Robert Syms: This is very important part of the Bill. With a review at least once a year, the authority will tally up everything that has happened—the number of prosecutions under the terms of the various parts of the Bill, for instance—and produce some sort of report about the condition of the licensing of the HMOs in their area. Clause 3(3) states that the authority must keep records, in particular for ''the appropriate national authority''—the Government, or the National Assembly for Wales.
 I want to tease out of the Minister what information will be in the public domain. That is of relevance to my speech in the previous debate. When environmental health officers go into a property with score sheets and come out having done an assessment, will that be a public document? 
 Let us say that the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale is concerned about the state of properties in her constituency. The environmental health officers of her local authority will inspect them and produce reports on all of them. As the Minister said in the previous debate, after the completion of those score sheets, conditions may be set on a particular property. They might be low-level conditions: the property might not have exposed wires, which is a high risk, or it might be cold and damp and inappropriate for young children. Would the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale be able to access through the internet or a register the inspections of all the HMOs in her constituency, or would such matters be purely between the environmental health officer and the landlord? If the latter, the documents would not be public, so somebody who was going to rent from a particular landlord would not know the precise nature of the inspection of a property or the scoring by the environmental health officer. 
 If a system is to work in terms of risk assessment for individuals, that information must be in the public domain. If it is not in the public domain, the landlord and the busy council officers may be aware of it, and it may be in a dusty file in a dusty room in the hon. Lady's local authority, but those to whom that information may be useful—the public, the Member of Parliament, local authority councillors—will not necessarily have access. 
 I am trying to tease out of the Minister whether there will be a big register in a local authority that contains all those reports with, perhaps at the end, a summary of what action was or was not taken. It is fairly easy to find out when enforcement action has been taken, but I presume that the point of the system is to avoid enforcement action if possible, because it is expensive and because people are in danger until that course of action is followed through, which can take a long time. What we want is somebody to go in, do the scoring and come up with recommendations, and for the landlord to say that they will immediately go away and carry them out because they are a good landlord—and because if they are not a good landlord they may be prosecuted or have conditions put on their property. 
 The Bill sets down that there should be the annual report—which may be a nicely published document with glossy pictures—and there might be information that the Government is required to answer to questions from Members of Parliament who are interested in housing, but we do not know how the fruits of all the work of environmental health officers surveying properties will be put in the public domain or made available to those within a local community.

David Kidney: The hon. Gentleman is making good points. It is important that the public are able to inspect the records. The Bill suggests that the local authority must keep records. The present relevant Act of Parliament is the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, which will be superseded on 1 January next year by the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Those records must be made public, unless there is a reason to exempt them. I cannot think of a reason why they would be exempted: can the hon. Gentleman?
 While the hon. Gentleman is thinking about that, I will mention that he is supporting amendments tabled by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings that want to go further by making the local authority carry out a review every year and publish every action that it is going to take. I presume that he does not want there to be any exemptions to that.

Robert Syms: My hon. Friend and I are trying to tease out the Government's proposals, not ours. The proposed system is complex and we are trying to understand how it will operate—and I think that, on occasion, the Minister is trying to understand that, too.
 If an environmental health officer makes a report and gives it to a landlord, it is reasonable that that landlord be given time to put matters right. One would not want to put a bad or critical report on a website or in a register from day one, without the individual concerned having had time to put matters right. If one goes around looking for things, one is bound to find something wrong, even in properties managed by responsible landlords. In order to be fair to landlords and provide all the relevant information, any appropriate action taken by a landlord should, if possible, be added to the report. For example, one could say in the report, ''This is the score, these are the 
 problems; this is what was done.'' Otherwise, people may be scared by a lot of out-of-date information that is not relevant to the property because action has been taken. We need the whole picture. 
 I am trying to tease out of the Minister what information will be available, at what point. Will the information be available in a form that will enable one to go to the local authority office and either tap into it via a computer or look at it in a paper volume? For example, someone may want to peruse reports on 50 houses in multiple occupation in Morecambe because they want to move to a safe place with a good record. The advantage of the system is that it may become more apparent who the bad and good landlords are. That may be part a young couple's informed choice on where they live. 
 Will the Minister tell us what information is likely to be in the public domain, and what format it will be in? What is fair both to landlords—we ought to be fair to them—and those seeking to occupy their properties? People may spend a lot of money assessing properties. If the relevant information is a big secret, the objective of the system, which is to make properties safe for families and individuals, will not be met.

Keith Hill: Clause 3 is a general provision that requires local housing authorities to keep housing conditions in their areas under annual consideration, with a view to determining what action they should take. The provisions clause 3(2)(a) and (b) set out possible courses of action to deal with hazards identified under the health and safety rating system. The provisions in paragraphs (c) and (d), which declare renewal areas and provide financial assistance for home repair and improvement respectively are more general measures that stand independent of the Bill.
 The provisions are designed simply to ensure that local authorities consider the condition of the properties in their areas. We are eager for local housing authorities to develop housing strategies and we encourage them to have a view on which properties they ought to prioritise for inspection. We are not a regulatory Government; we are unrepentantly new Labour. I do not wish to load anything more than that on authorities in this context. Conversely, and in response to amendment No. 218, neither do I want to weaken that requirement. 
 This is a bizarre turn of events: the Liberal Democrats, of all people, are in non-regulatory mode and the Conservatives, judging by the comments made by the hon. Member for Poole, are in passionate freedom of information mode. The succinct answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about the public availability of the assessments and documents is: I do not know. There may be data protection issues. I will come back to him and the Committee on that question. 
 I can, however, reassure the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, who talked about the value of authorities publishing an annual report on housing in their district as a useful device to provide clarity for landlords, that there will be plenty of 
 guidance to ensure that landlords understand the new system and the powers of the local authority. 
 Amendment No. 180 requires authorities to publish details of their intentions before introducing discretionary licensing. The hon. Gentleman did not dwell on the matter, but I presume that he had in mind what the Bill calls additional licensing under part 2. I am not sure why that particular measure has been singled out for discussion from all the courses of action available to authorities. However, I draw the Committee's attention to clause 45, which requires authorities to consult those who are likely to be affected by the designation of an area, to be subject to additional licensing, and to consider any representations made in accordance with the consultation. 
 In the light of my response, I urge the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings to withdraw the amendments.

John Hayes: The Minister has barely made a convincing case. I am tempted to push the amendments, although my hon. Friends take a rather more measured view of the Minister's performance—[Interruption.] Not of the Minister, but of the Minister's performance.
 I think that it is important that at some stage of our deliberations we receive more information about the ability of members of the public and others to access relevant information. I congratulate the Minister on his honesty in telling us that he did not know the current position. However, it would be most lamentable if we were not given more information during the later stages of the Bill. 
 A good point has been made about allowing appropriate access to information by tenants and potential tenants and by landlords. Whether that takes the form of an annual statement, as I have proposed, or of making the information availability for inspection, as suggested by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), is a matter of legitimate debate. However, I am not satisfied by the idea that those documents would not be available at all. I think that it was Beveridge, whom the Minister quoted earlier, who said that ignorance is a weed that is often grown by dictators and despots. We do not want ignorance to be the watchword so far as access to relevant information is concerned. 
 I did not receive an assurance from the Minister. However, on the happy expectation that we will be told more about the availability of information about properties and that the Minister, with his typical charm and good will, will make such information available to the Committee, I am happy to withdraw my amendments as the hour is getting late.

Edward Davey: I do not want the Committee to think that this is a fit of pique, but the Minister did not answer my point, save to suggest that all Labour Members were all now signed up to new Labour. The point was not a new deregulatory mission of mine—I am not in any way in favour of regulation unless it is really needed, although it is needed in some of these cases. However, I do not see why the report is required
 at least every year. The Minister has not answered that point.

John Hayes: Perhaps I can help the Minister by pointing out to the hon. Gentleman that because the housing market for the private rental sector is fragile and therefore susceptible to trends, it changes rapidly. The rate of sale of properties purchased to rent, for example, tends to be faster than that of properties purchased for owner-occupation. The pace of that change means that it is important that we keep a constant eye on it. In this case, I would rather side with the Minister and say that a regular review is necessary. I do not want to be over-regulatory, but the data that I hope will be made public for inspection—I am sure that the Minister will tell us how that can be done—must be accurate

Edward Davey: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on at least having a stab at a justification. However, I am unsure whether the Minister would offer the same justification or another. I should like to hear from the Minister why the housing authorities must consider housing conditions in their districts on these points every year. If I am not satisfied, I shall have to press amendments Nos. 217 and 218—with your agreement, Mr. Pike.

Keith Hill: I rise reluctantly to respond to the point, which seems to be a question about angels dancing on a pinhead. All that we are stipulating in the Bill is that each year the local housing authority should carry out a review of all the stock for which it has responsibility—that is to say, under the Bill's provisions, all the stock in its locality. Under the terms of the Housing Act 1985 there is already such a requirement on local authorities. We are asking for a consideration, not a report. We expect local authorities to keep records, which can be made available to the national authority. In a fit of greater generosity to the hon. Gentleman than I would be inclined to indulge in, it would appear that my officials are willing to consider every two years. With that, but without a commitment, I sit down.

Edward Davey: I shall not ask the Committee to vote on the amendments, but I think that the first strike goes to the Liberals.

John Hayes: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Edward Davey: I beg to move amendment No. 219, in
clause 3, page 3, line 42, at end insert— 
 '(v) any sections as they relate to empty residential premises'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 New clause 2—Empty Homes (Management orders)— 
'The Secretary of State will by order introduce a scheme for Empty Homes Management Orders within 12 months of Royal Assent, subject to an affirmative resolution of both Houses.'.

Edward Davey: As usual, I shall try to help the Government. In the early summer of 2003 they issued a consultation paper, ''Empty Homes:
 Temporary Management, Lasting Solutions''. The end of the consultation period was 22 August 2003. The Government are rightly considering—not before time—what measures they should take to end the scandal of empty homes. As we heard in earlier debates about the lack of affordable housing and overcrowding, we desperately need measures to tackle the crisis. Using some of the empty homes in high-demand areas would be a quick, cost-effective, environmentally sustainable solution.
 My constituency, Kingston and Surbiton, has an affordable housing crisis. We have a lot of empty homes, primarily in the private sector. There are three roads just off the Hook junction off the Kingston A3 bypass—Brook road, Haycroft road and Gladstone road—where there are, at the last count, 22 family properties that have been empty for over a year. When there are more than 1,000 families in temporary accommodation in Kingston borough, one begins to see how outrageous that is. I shall not go into details, save to say that I and some local councillors are trying to persuade the owners of the properties to put those homes into useful occupation. It is clear from that example, and from many others arising from my discussions with the Empty Homes Agency, that the Government are right to consult. However, the local authorities need extra powers, so that when a landlord cannot be encouraged, bribed or incentivised to put those empty homes back on the housing market, there are back-stop powers with safeguards that can be used. 
 The consultation document from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is very good, so on opening the final draft of the Bill I was surprised to see that the Government were not even giving themselves the power to introduce one of the options in the consultation paper. The Select Committee was surprised, too, and recommendation 35 in its report on the draft Housing Bill says: 
''We recommend that the Bill introduces Compulsory Leasing Orders to allow local authorities to take over the management of empty properties.''
 It was quite right to do so. 
 The consultation document describes four options, on which it is consulting. The first option is to do nothing, and it is pretty clear that the Select Committee, Labour Back Benchers, certainly the Liberal Democrats and, I understand, Ministers are not in do-nothing mode. The other three options are all about giving local authorities the power to assume temporary management control of empty homes in one way or another. 
 New clause 2 uses the phraseology of the consultation paper to give the Secretary of State the power to introduce the scheme for empty homes management orders by order, subject to affirmative procedure. I agree with the Government that that is a huge topic. They need to act urgently on it, and I am staggered that they have not used the legislation as a vehicle for taking action. I am pretty sure that the Minister wants to do something on the subject. Certainly, I cannot believe that the Government would have issued such a detailed consultation 
 document just last year if they were not minded to do something. The sustainable communities plan mentioned taking action. 
 We have a suitable vehicle before us, and much of part 4, which deals with interim management orders and final management orders, creates exactly the framework that would be needed for empty homes management orders; it fits them perfectly. This is the legislation that is needed. We all know how difficult it is to get parliamentary time for primary legislation, which is what would be required to introduce empty homes management orders, so I honestly do not see why the Government are not coming forward now. 
 I feel passionate about the subject, because I cannot stand the fact that there are constituents in my area, and no doubt across the country, who are in bed and breakfast, or in temporary or overcrowded accommodation, while there are homes that have already been built and could be occupied tomorrow but cannot be used. It is time to act; this country should have acted on the issue years ago, and now we have the chance.

Sydney Chapman: The hon. Gentleman said that he had done an analysis of empty properties in his constituency. He was, of course, referring to the empty properties in the private sector. I should be interested to know two things. First, did he speak only to private landlords about properties that were not let for one reason or another, or did he extend his net to include private properties that had never been let but just happened to be empty for some reason? I take an amateur's interest in the subject, but the central point that I have come to is that there are a number of reasons why private properties are empty. It may be the death of the owner, a problem with the estate, or the need to refurbish the property significantly—I need not list all the reasons. I am interested to know how wide the hon. Gentleman proposes to cast his net in dealing with the real problem of empty properties in the private as well as public sector.

Edward Davey: My personal position is that I have cast the net quite wide to include all residential premises, whether they have been previously let or not. The Government have described different options in the consultation paper. My new clause does not preclude the Government from going around with different-sized nets; they could go either broad or narrow. I am deliberately leaving the new clause quite general so that the Government's hands are not tied in their choice of options. I understand the thrust of what the hon. Gentleman says, but there are many good reasons why properties are left empty. I am not sure whether he has had a chance to read the consultation paper, which says that the Government are thinking about the safeguards that will be needed to look after the genuine property rights of people who have a good reason for leaving a property empty.
 During my discussions with the Empty Homes Agency I have been concerned about cases where there is an elderly person who does not want the hassle, or perhaps an elderly person who has begun to suffer from dementia and has to go into a care home. I am anxious to ensure that the legislation that is introduced 
 to give compulsory leasing orders to local authorities also provides safeguards to those categories of people. That is important. I am pleased to say that the Government's consultation paper takes such issues into account. 
 We cannot ignore this matter any more. The hon. Gentleman, who is a London Member, will know how difficult the housing crisis is, and how difficult it can be to get planning permission to build new houses—yet here we have homes that are already built. It will be very cheap to get those back into the market. Long planning inquiries will not be required. It will not damage our precious green fields. Let us use those houses. I know that some people are worried about property rights, and I share those worries, but the Government have got the balance right. 
 The House has passed compulsory purchase orders that do not just borrow the property for a short period, as this measure would. Empty homes management orders only borrow the property and give temporary management controls, before handing it back to the owner in due course. During the course of the order, provision can be made for paying rental income to the underlying freeholder. Compulsory purchase orders go much further and are a much greater infringement of property rights than what is envisaged in this worthy consultation paper. 
 As always I am trying to help the Government implement their own policies, which include ideas that we have supported for many years. If the Minister cannot accept the amendment tonight—I doubt whether he will—I hope that he will at least give the Committee an indication that his mind is not totally closed and that this idea could somehow, at some stage, find its way into the Bill. 
Mr. Hayes rose—

Peter Pike: Before I call Mr. Hayes, I have to say that I used to go to school along the A3 every day until I left in 1954. I am sure that that fact will not influence the debate at all.

John Hayes: That has certainly informed my contribution, Mr. Pike, not least because I am a little surprised; I assumed that you were at school much more recently.
 The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton made his point on an inadequate amendment that is proposed at the wrong stage. Nevertheless, it contains a kernel of truth. His passion on this subject is to mine what a boy scout's bonfire is to Dante's inferno. That is not surprising, because mine is the party that has championed vulnerable people throughout its existence, whereas his is the party of Cobden and Bright, and others, who defended putting boys up chimneys. I do not mean to be unkind, but it is important to put Liberal amendments in the context of their sorry history. However, he is right in saying that this matter deserves to be aired and that the Government frustrated proper expectations when they failed to include any detail on it in the Bill. After extensive consultation and discussion on this subject by all parties, including political parties and people outside the House, there was a reasonable 
 expectation that we might move forward with some proposals on empty homes. 
 This is a complex area involving issues surrounding property rights, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) alluded. It would be monstrous if people were obliged to rent out property against their will due to legislation that was perfectly properly designed to expand the number of homes available. However, it is entirely appropriate for us to find ways to provide incentives for people who might not otherwise consider renting out properties. Many people might jump at the chance of doing so, with considerable benefit to themselves, and to the wider community by making additional accommodation available in the way that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton suggested. We must examine the balance between obligation and incentive in terms of private property.

Edward Davey: As the hon. Gentleman has said, the incentive route has been tried. It is in place and we support it. We would prefer to be able to persuade owners of empty properties to put them back on the market voluntarily. However, I have a question for him and his party to answer. Would they allow back-stop powers if, after reasonable discussion, approaches and incentives, houses remain empty for years and undermine a community? Would the Conservative party take no action? That is the logic of his party's position to date, and the logic of the position that he has outlined today.

John Hayes: On the contrary, I could hardly have explained my position in more colourful terms. I am passionate about finding ways to bring empty homes into use as part of the housing stock, particularly as rented accommodation in the private sector. The Empty Homes Agency estimates there to be about 750,000 empty homes, many of which are private houses owned by individuals or families, who are not encouraged or inspired to rent them out.
 The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton gave the example of someone owning a property due to an elderly relative dying. The probate might take a while, as might the process of selling the house. That person would not think about renting out the property, but if they were financially encouraged, perhaps through tax or some other means, they might do so for a period of six or nine months. That would greatly and conveniently increase the number of short-term rented properties available, because it would require no planning or building. 
 There is a separate issue about properties linked to commercial premises, such as flats or rooms above shops. There is a range of ways that shopkeepers and owners of such properties could be encouraged to put them to use. They could be counted as potential empty homes. 
 A third group of properties are those in local authority care—I use that word with caution—that remain empty. Travelling through urban areas in a Liberal Democrat or Labour controlled borough, one will see many boarded-up and empty council properties. There are even a few in Conservative 
 boroughs, which is surprising but true. Responsible people have an obligation to ask themselves, ''What are we going to do about that?'' Those properties often remain empty for too long, and there are real problems and inconsistencies. The Minister will know that the record of dealing with empty properties, and the speed of processing them, varies enormously among different local authorities. We could bring forward appropriate measures to cover that issue. 
 The final group of properties, on which the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton was right to press me, consists of properties owned by people who have no intention of letting them. It might be not simply because they have not considered it, or have not been encouraged to do so, but because they are determined not to. Boarded-up properties have a very detrimental effect on the value of neighbouring properties and on whole communities. We all know of cases of owners who buy up streets of houses or parts of streets, allow them to remain vacant for a long time and deteriorate, and then board them up. That is having a really damaging effect on communities, and it is appropriate to consider what action might reasonably be taken.

Sally Keeble: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there are provisions in the legislation to deal with precisely the circumstances that he describes?

John Hayes: Yes, but they are in a later section of the Bill. That is why I said in my opening remarks that, as well as being too limited an amendment, it is in the wrong place. As the hon. Lady suggests, at a later stage we could consider amending the Bill to expand what is there already to take into account some of my other points about empty homes. Who knows? It might be that an appropriate new clause or amendment—of a more specific kind—sallies forth at an appropriate point, allowing us to do precisely what the hon. Lady suggests and making sensible changes to the provisions to which she refers.
 I am determined that we on the Conservative Benches should take a thoughtful but bold move towards working with all those of good will to come up with a strategy for empty homes. It would not be as dictatorial or as nit-picking—it would certainly not be as intolerant—a strategy as one that might be proposed by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. Perhaps I am wrong, but he seems to suggest that he wants to tread on the toes of those who might, perfectly properly and for good family or personal reasons—

Edward Davey: I am talking about safeguards.

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman has drawn back from the position that I thought he was beginning to take. Any policy should deliver real results in terms of empty homes. I am sympathetic to those at the Empty Homes Agency—I have met them and they have made their case to me—and to some of the points made by the hon. Gentleman about the scale of the problem, the failure to act and the frustrated expectations caused by what the Bill does not say. However, I shall not support his amendment, because it is in the wrong part of the Bill and it is too limited.
 We expect the Government to come up with a clear explanation as to why they have not included much on the matter, and what they intend to do about it, how and when. If they do not, not only will the Empty Homes Agency and the hon. Gentleman be disappointed, but so will the many people who would be able to gain access to an affordable rented home if the Government acted in the way suggested by the Empty Homes Agency and recommended by the hon. Gentleman and me.

Keith Hill: I start by offering the Committee the reassurance that the Government are genuinely seized of the importance of the issue. I want to say a little more about our approach to empty residential homes specified in the amendments. First, I hope that the Committee will be interested in the report that I received in June 2003 of the flats above shops taskforce established by the British Property Federation. It looks at the enormous opportunities in that sector, estimating that it has the potential to accommodate 300,000 people. That would not only serve our purposes in reducing the problems of homelessness and resolving other housing issues, but revitalise our inner-city areas and town centres. We are now carrying forward the eleven proposals and recommendations in conjunction with other national agencies. It has already been said that it is estimated that 300,000 residential properties are standing empty in the long term. As hon. Members have said, a combination of action in both areas would go a long way to address our problems with housing supply.
 Before I deal with the amendment and new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, representing the party of Bright and Cobden, I shall turn my attentions to the representative of the party of Shaftesbury and Disraeli, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings. It is possibly the party of the vulnerable, but historically it has been the party of property par excellence. I am fascinated to discover that Conservatives felt frustrated by the Government's failure to include measures on empty homes in the Bill. I feel a tremendous welling up of affection towards the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, not only because of his constituency title. 
 However, the hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He referred to his party's support for the incentive schemes, which were introduced under the previous Conservative Administration by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young). Although those schemes were proper, desirable and commendable, the debate has moved on, and the hon. Gentleman should be in no doubt where the debate on empty homes is now focused. 
 The hon. Gentleman said that it would be monstrous if people were obliged to let their property against their will, but the point of the proposals for compulsory leasing is for local authorities to step in to manage such properties irrespective of the owner's will. That is where the debate has reached and where the Conservative party needs to nail its colours to the mast. Warm words simply will not do.

John Hayes: The Minister makes light of the possibility of encouraging people by incentives such as tax breaks or grants, but I was specific in the difference that I described. I painted a picture that involved, first, private property in the hands of the family of a deceased person and, secondly, an irresponsible landlord who buys up a street of houses, keeps them empty for a considerable time and boards them up, thereby acting in a way that is detrimental to other householders and the rest of the community. The Minister has a better case on obligations in the latter situation. There is a qualitative difference between the two examples, and that must be addressed by a sensible strategy.

Keith Hill: To that extent, the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North are right, and there is provision in the Bill along those lines. However, we are dealing with measures primarily to deal with antisocial behaviour rather than the wider problem of housing supply, so even that cunning ploy does not get the hon. Gentleman off the hook.
 Amendment No. 219, tabled by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, would require local authorities to pay specific regard to empty residential properties in considering what action to take under the provisions in clause 3. The amendment is unnecessary because empty properties will be accommodated under the hazard assessment system provided for in part 1. 
 The housing health and safety rating system will enable hazards to be assessed in the light of the actual or potential occupier most vulnerable to the hazard. For instance, a property that is likely to be occupied by a family with children can be assessed on that basis whether or not it is empty for the time being. In addition, clause 1(5) makes specific provision for unoccupied HMO accommodation if the premises in question are constructed or adapted for use as an HMO but are unoccupied, or not occupied as an HMO for the time being. 
 I turn now to new clause 2 and the proposed order on empty property management orders. I stress that the Government are committed to tackling the pernicious effects of empty homes. The case for action is clear. There are 300,000 long-standing private-sector empty homes in England. They blight communities and are a magnet for vandals. They tie up the resources of local authorities and the emergency services. Above all, bringing empty homes back into use will provide much-needed housing and reduce the need for land to develop new homes on urban fringes and in the countryside. 
 We have been considering the concept of compulsory leasing as recommended by the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee in its report on empty homes in autumn 2002. We published our proposals on 22 May 2003, in a consultation paper entitled, ''Empty Homes: Temporary Management, Lasting Solutions''. In it, we considered a range of options ranging from the existing voluntary arrangements to the provision, through legislation, of a new power to local 
 authorities to take on temporary management of such properties. The paper pointed out the need to be clear about the properties involved; they should not be second homes or commercial property or transactional vacant dwellings. 
 We are considering responses to the consultation, which ended on 22 August. Some issues need further consideration. They include, first, how to provide some form of temporary management role for local authorities, with all the necessary safeguards that might in some cases be justified. Secondly, we are aware that the proposal raises some fundamental issues about the right of public authorities to intervene in the legitimate business interests of private individuals. Thirdly, we need to consider how such a power would be funded so that local authorities are not discouraged from using it. It is clear that such concerns must be carefully weighed against the backdrop of public concern about the negative impact of empty homes. All survey data show strong support for action on empty homes. We therefore intend to produce a response to the consultation with detailed proposals. 
 The hon. Gentleman and others asked why such provisions were not included in the Bill. Frankly, the Bill deals with a number of pressing and well-developed commitments. The truth is that empty homes management orders are a relatively a new concept, and we need fully to consider the impact of the proposals before we can contemplate legislation. It is important, in an area that so fundamentally impinges on property rights, that we get our approach right. Rushing it through would be a prescription for bad legislation. 
 I hope that I have demonstrated not only to the hon. Gentleman but to the Committee that the Government take the issue of empty homes seriously. We are actively engaged on the question, but because of the weighty issues involved we are not in a position to propose legislation. That is why we cannot accept the Liberal Democrat amendment, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

Edward Davey: I am slightly disappointed by the Minister's response. He spent much of it saying how much he agreed, and that the Government were seized of the issue and wanted to take action. He then said that the Government would respond to the consultation in due course, but with no timetable for the response or the publication of draft legislation—and no timetable for action. I recognise that difficult issues are involved, which is why they were dealt with in the consultation paper. That is why there has been so much debate on the matter over such a long time. It is not a new policy proposal; it has been around for some time. The Empty Homes Agency has been punting it around. The Minister pointed out that the Select Committee first looked into the matter two years ago, when it took evidence and made proposals. We have already had plenty of debate.
 One point that the Minister suggested might weigh against the adoption of my proposal was that it might cost local authorities money. That is a safeguard. The local authority would have to make a budget before deciding to use the power. The fact that it would have 
 to make such an investment would be a safeguard for property owners. Local authorities would not be able to use the power willy-nilly or without thinking whether they had a case that would stand up in court. The Minister should not be so worried about that aspect. 
 I shall not press the amendment to a Division. I can see that the Committee is restless and that the Whip will shortly want to jump to his feet. However, I hope that the Minister will think again. I am sure that, on Report or in another place, we will return to the issue. 
 I believe that some Labour Members are not happy about having to wait much longer; they, too, are looking to him and his colleagues to move quickly. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Paul Clark.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Five o'clock till Thursday 22 January at ten minutes past Nine o'clock.